On 02/24/2016 08:54 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: > >> In my experience it is almost always best to run autovacuum very often >> and very aggressively. That generally means tuning scaling factor and >> thresholds as well, such that there are never more than say 50-100k dead >> rows. Then running vacuum with no delays or limits runs quite fast is is >> generally not noticeable/impactful. >> >> However that strategy does not work well for vacuums which run long, >> such as an anti-wraparound vacuum. So in my opinion we need to think >> about this as at least two distinct cases requiring different solutions. > > With the freeze map there is no need for anti-wraparound vacuums to be > terribly costly, since they don't need to scan the whole table each > time. That patch probably changes things a lot in this area.
Yes, I had forgotten about that. It would be a huge help. -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature